MBNA - crafty little, errr, monkeys

[palomino]

I had a loan account with MBNA which, like various other debts, was defaulted when I ran out of money.

 

Last January I agreed a full and final settlement figure after approaching various friends and relations to make up the amount. As it happened one person let me down and I was (roughly) £300 short of the settlement figure.

I sent the remaining amount, roughly £1800, off to MBNA with a letter explaining the circumstances and requesting they accept the lower amount as the F&F settlement figure and if they couldn't then to return the payment cheque to me. The cheque was stapled to my letter and has been encashed.

At the time MBNA whinged a bit but it all went quiet after I wrote to them pointing out the contents of my letter.

 

I've now received a letter from them (10 months later) saying that my payments are now due for review. Err, what payments??

 

Anyway I did ring them and they explained that I didn't make the agreed full and final settlement as agreed and they sent me a letter at the time telling me so. No mention of my letters at all.

They also explained that unless payments were resumed (again, what payments?) they would be taking me to court.

 

So, the lesson to be learnt is that MBNA are not to be trusted. But I guess most people here knew that anyway.

[ODC]

This is typical of the sheer greed of DCAs and Merchant Bankers. NONE of them can be trusted. You sent the cheque on the condition that its acceptance was in F&F settlement. Surely their acceptance of the cheque meant they agreed to that.

 

Perhaps and SAR to them would produce a copy of your letter and thge letter they allege they sent you on receipt of this cheque.

 

Im sure you will be more than able to take on the Merchant Bankers of North America and bring this matter to a satisfactory (for you) conclusion. Having read a lot of your posts I cannot see them get the better of you in the long term.

[cashins]

This is typical of the sheer greed of DCAs and Merchant Bankers. NONE of them can be trusted. You sent the cheque on the condition that its acceptance was in F&F settlement. Surely their acceptance of the cheque meant they agreed to that.

 

I would say so too.

 

Still won't stop them selling the balance on anyway.

 

David

 

PS MBNA are known for the reuctance to take court action and I suspect it's because they don't want their shenanigans parade in court.

[Josie8]

This is typical of the sheer greed of DCAs and Merchant Bankers. NONE of them can be trusted. You sent the cheque on the condition that its acceptance was in F&F settlement. Surely their acceptance of the cheque meant they agreed to that.

 

Perhaps and Subject Access Request to them would produce a copy of your letter and thge letter they allege they sent you on receipt of this cheque.

 

Im sure you will be more than able to take on the Merchant Bankers of North America and bring this matter to a satisfactory (for you) conclusion. Having read a lot of your posts I cannot see them get the better of you in the long term.

 

 

Unfortunately no becuase you can't give good consideration by paying the creditor less than you owe. Any argument you may have had is lost because you paid £300 less than the nfigure agreed.

 

That is established case law. Only way round it would have been if the payment had been made by a third party.

[ODC]

Surely a full and final settlement is always less than what is actually owed and Full and finals are always subject to negotiation. Can the OP not make the cashing of his cheque a conditional acceptance of HIS terms

[angel_1]

hiya all

Ive had viscount stair confirm to me that its okay that i post below to others here to help one of his postings,

i know in reflection too late on this particular account perhaps but info useful for the future to everyone

ciao maz

*******

Re: Viscount Stair vs Amex

Full and final options and offer given

No problem, that is what CAG is about. The silly question is the one you don't ask.

 

Tread carefully with any form of discounted offer from a banker, and especially Amex.

 

Many bankers throw out offers like confetti and, in many cases, they are not at all sincere. The vast majority are just blunt tricks to try and get people to Telephone them, the larger the discount, the more they hope people will knee jerk into picking up the Telephone.

 

You can see their logic: if someone is interested in Paying 20%-40% of the alleged Debt, if nothing else, it tells them they can and want to Pay 20%-40% of the alleged Debt. That is probably the whole purpose of the offer. It may, for example, make the Debt more sellable to a DCA, as they can say the Debtor has indicated a willingness and desire to Pay £x, thus making the Debt much more attractive when it goes up for tender or auction sale in DCA Land.

 

However, whilst some offers are a little more sincere, most of these real offers often carry a nasty little sting in the tail. These are the ones that can be called Short Settlements, i.e. they offer a lump sum discount, but neglect to point out they can still chase you for the balance.

 

What you need, assuming you have the funds available to pay any offer, is a binding Full and Final Offer, one that includes a written undertaking from the banker concerned that when you make the Payment, that is the end of the matter for good, no strings attached whatsoever. You'd be wise to include other specific clauses such as the removal of any adverse Data, along with an undertaking that they will desist from ever mentioning the alleged Account ever again, to anyone.

 

Get all of that in Writing before you Pay them a penny, and make sure the F&F Offer Letter is signed by a real banker, not one of the facsimile signatures and invented names you see on many banking letters. For example, one bank in particular seems to use a number of names that do not appear to relate to real people. Amex may do the same, so make sure any Signature is signed in ink, by hand, and by someone with the appropriate level of authority within their organisation.

 

I think you can now see that any offer has to be taken with a pinch of salt, and it may not mean very much. By that, I mean it may not be a reliable indicator of the strength or weakness of their position.

 

Indeed, 97 times out of 100, it's just a vehicle being used to convey other less palatable intentions.

[Josie8]

Surely a full and final settlement is always less than what is actually owed and Full and finals are always subject to negotiation. Can the OP not make the cashing of his cheque a conditional acceptance of HIS terms

 

 

It is good case law that you can not give good consiuderation to the crediotr for his promise to accept less than you owe by paying him less. Good consideration can be given by a third party for his promise as they don't owe the creditor any money and are therefore giving him something for his promise.

[cashins]

It is good case law that you can not give good consiuderation to the crediotr for his promise to accept less than you owe by paying him less. Good consideration can be given by a third party for his promise as they don't owe the creditor any money and are therefore giving him something for his promise.

 

Usefull info

 

David

[palomino]

It is good case law that you can not give good consiuderation to the crediotr for his promise to accept less than you owe by paying him less. Good consideration can be given by a third party for his promise as they don't owe the creditor any money and are therefore giving him something for his promise.

 

 

I think what you are saying is that MBNA is legally able to go ahead with their threats. Much good it will do them of course - you need money to pay debts and I don't have any.

[Newborn]

Palomino, you do realise that you are guilty of bringing monkeys into disrepute by associating them with MBNA!

 

Newborn